Owner Gemma Ward walked free from court and was told that the animal, who sent the delivery driver to hospital, could return home as it was ‘not a danger’ to the public
A banned dog that bit an Uber Eats driver in the face and sent him to hospital has been allowed to return to its owner after an expert concluded it was “not a danger” to the public.
Owner Gemma Louise Ward walked free from court after her Pit Bull Terrier, Kyra, mauled the man as he delivered a McDonald’s to their home in Manchester last year. The victim was left “frozen in fear” as the dog sunk its teeth into his jaw, leaving blood dripping onto the floor.
At Tameside Magistrates’ Court on Monday, April 22, Ward was told the animal could return home to her after a dog expert concluded it was not a danger to the public. The 40-year-old was handed a community order and ordered to pay £1,500 in compensation to the victim.
Gareth Hughes, prosecuting, told the court that the man knocked on Ward’s door to drop off the food order on the evening of May 3 of last year. Mr Hughes said the driver could see a dog barking at the living room window, but was not immediately concerned. When Ward opened the door, the victim realised that the animal was not contained in the living room and appeared “agitated”, barking loudly and trying to get past Ward.
Unsure what to do, the driver tried to pass the food to Ward, but the dog overtook her and began heading towards him. The man took a step back, unsure whether the dog was after the food or wanted to attack him, Mr Hughes added. He raised both his hands up and dropped the delivery bag as the dog pinned him against a fence, the court heard.
The victim was left “frozen in fear” as the animal jumped up and sunk its teeth into his jaw, leaving blood dripping onto the floor. The dog attempted to bite again in the same area, but the man had his hand over the wound, and suffered a scratch instead. The court heard how Ward had come out but appeared “reluctant to get involved”. The victim’s daughter, who was in the car with him, came to help him after she heard him “screaming in pain”.
The attack was finally put to an end when Ward’s daughter emerged from the house and grabbed hold of the dog. The man’s daughter then dialled 999 and he was taken to hospital, where he was treated for the wound to his face. He said in a victim impact statement read out in court that the attack had left him “shook and confused as to why someone would let this happen”. He added he struggled to get over the attack and was having to rely on medication to help him sleep at night.
Ward, of Oldham, Manchester, previously admitted possession of a prohibited breed and being in charge of a dog dangerously out of control, causing injury. Police seized the dog after the attack and it has remained in kennels since, but the court heard that despite it being a banned breed, an expert assessed the pet and concluded it was not a danger and could be placed on the register of exempt dogs managed by the Department for Food and Rural Affairs.
Anthony Horsfall, representing Ward, said the mum-of-three was “wholly remorseful about what took place”. He added Ward’s home had three safety gate but the one at the living room door was left ajar in a “momentary lapse in concentration”. He continued: “Ms Ward did try to shield the victim. She did try to act as a barrier between him and the dog.”
Mr Horsfall said Ward also mistakenly believed her dog was an American XL Bully and not a Pit Bull Terrier. He said: “At the relevant time, she was not aware that she had a prohibited breed.” He added Ward had since purchased a warning sign and a muzzle for the dog, urging the court to allow the animal to come home. He said: “This is the first and only time in which an incident has occurred. There have never been any problems. This is someone who, notwithstanding a momentary lapse in concentration, cares deeply about the dog.”
Ward was given a 12-month community order and told she must carry out 100 hours of unpaid work. She was also ordered to pay £1,500 in compensation to the victim. Chair of the bench, Janet Entwistle, told Ward that the court had deemed her to be a “fit and proper” person to be allowed to keep a dog. She said the dog could be returned under a contingent destruction order, which requires it to be kept on a lead and muzzled in public. Ward was also told to keep the pet inside a crate when answering the door in future.
Ms Entwistle said: “We do feel that you are fit to have a dog. Obviously you will be more aware now. You have got children there so I’m sure you will be extra careful.”
